"The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others" Deputy Bob Hill.............................................
Trevor Pitmans Blog.......................................BALDTRUTH"

Monday, June 21, 2010

BUNGLING MINISTER 5 - 'How do we get out of this one'

So its now time to have a look at the allegations contained in the Warcup Letter sent to the Chief Executive on the 10th November 2008

Now as we would expect the Warcup Letter contains the same allegations as the Met Interim Report but they also contain these points.

“There is no evidence of a proper command structure having been put in place in relation to the HDLG investigation, with a designated Gold Commander responsible and accountable for the incident.

There is no recorded evidence of any strategic oversight and approval of tactical plans and enquiry parameters on the HDLG investigation.

Financial controls appear to have been weak with a lack of overall strategy and a lack of day to day control.”

Now the allegations i have been looking at here are the one's concerning management issues, they are also the allegations Wiltshire have been investigating for the past 18 months. Seeing as there was nothing to report ILM has been unable to bring any disciplinary charges against Graham Power but for some strange reason has had to keep this crazy farce going.

Could ILM'S loyalty to David Warcup be a problem here

The reason i say this is ILM is trying to bring David Warcup in as the new Chief of Police and says 'he has my full backing' quite strange when he must remain NEUTRAL in fact VERY STRANGE.

OK lets look at the first allegation contained in the Warcup letter

1.“There is no evidence of a proper command structure having been put in place in relation to the HDLG investigation, with a designated Gold Commander responsible and accountable for the incident.

This is Constable Brains response

"Until this week Graham has been given no opportunity to answer the accusations that have been made therein. None amount to a question of gross misconduct. There is no question of a breach of personal integrity, therefore the very least that should have been done in November was to have provided Graham with a reasonable opportunity to consider the accusations and make a response"

"All of the points raised in the Warcup letter are capable of dispute and I repeat, had Graham been given more time in November he may well have been able to give a reasonable explanation. It is worth, I think, at this point, observing and emphasising that the investigation at Haut de la Garenne has never been a formal murder investigation"

"However, seeing as such importance has been attached to the Warcup letter it is important to address some of the key points."

"The first one was that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure was not put in place. That is an important point raised by David Warcup. In fact, it is his first point and a cardinal point for much of what follows. I have to tell you that the institution of a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure in the context of murder and major investigations is entirely a matter of judgment. It would not seem to me to be necessary in the circumstances of the Island of Jersey. It certainly does not represent a breach of discipline, or amount to gross misconduct"

"What the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual does require is that a senior investigating officer is appointed and this Graham did; first in the form of a detective inspector, who ran the investigation for the first 18 months and then as the matter gathered seriousness, he properly reflected the seriousness and status of the forthcoming investigation by putting his own deputy in as S.I.O. (Senior Investigating Officer). I think this clearly emphasises the seriousness with which Graham approached the whole question of the historic child abuse inquiries and the Haut de la Garenne investigations in particular. Now, National Police Improvement Agency professional practice, and I emphasise professional practice, advice is that for the management of critical incidents the guidelines, the professional practice guidelines, provide assistance for policing, and I emphasise these words “in the United Kingdom.” It is contained on the inside page of the practice advice. This practice advice contains information to assist policing in the United Kingdom. So, there is no automatic transference from the practice advice of the N.P.I.A. in the United Kingdom to the States of Jersey. The introduction to that practice advice also states that it should be used by chief officers to shape police officers to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels of service. It goes on: “The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at a local level in order to achieve the appropriate police response.” It will therefore be noted that the practice advice on critical incident management applies strictly to the U.K. However, even if it were to apply strictly to the States of Jersey it still requires adjustment and choices to be made at a local level. It does not remove the judgment of a chief officer or any other senior rank involved in the incident. Now, the N.P.I.A. practice advice was created in order to ensure that incidents which might become critical received an appropriately high level of response at their instigation. It can in no way be suggested or inferred that the States of Jersey Police underestimated, or understated, their initial or subsequent response to the emerging historic child abuse inquiry and the specific investigation at Haut de la Garenne. A critical incident is defined by A.C.P.O. as, and I quote: “Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family, and/or the community. It will be noted that the order of priority is the victim, the family, and the community.” Both the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation conspicuously put the needs of the victims and their families first, but they still had regard to the impact on the wider community, given the need to ensure that the chain of alleged abuse was finally halted and that the victims and their families were protected from threat and intimidation"

2."There is no recorded evidence of any strategic oversight and approval of tactical plans and enquiry parameters on the HDLG investigation."

This is Lennys response

How much oversight do they want? There is the original plans for going into HDLG and the carefully laid out steps as produced in the Rectangle summary (the public document which was on the SOJP website) and there was also the search strategy drawn up and approved by the National Policing Improvement Agency. Strange, isn’t it, how these documents are never mentioned by Gradwell or Warcup. In addition there are all the policy books. Note also, that ACPO said there was NO alternative to what we did.

3.Financial controls appear to have been weak with a lack of overall strategy and a lack of day to day control.”

This is Lennys response

And oh yes. Finance. How many times have we blown that jibe out of the water? We tried to work finance the best we could but we were refused a budget, not told how much we could work to, and when we did try to consider cost implications, were told by the Chief Ministers office that “cost was irrelevant” and that we should consider justice only. I was roasted by Bill Ogley for considering the financial implications. (Actually, it was more like a lukewarm radiator.)

So this has been a little look at the allegations put against Graham Power & Lenny Harper

There are many more that i will leave Constable Brain deal with.

Why did they suspend? what was the real reason behind this

I will leave you now with Constable Brain. This is a long read but must be done

All i ask is that our local MEDIA start investigating.

did mention a moment ago that the Morris Inquiry established that in cases of suspension it is necessary that any suspension is proportionate to both the risk of the individual remaining at work and the seriousness of the allegation. The David Warcup letter represents a point of view. Until this week Graham has been given no opportunity to answer the accusations that have been made therein. None amount to a question of gross misconduct. There is no question of a breach of personal integrity, therefore the very least that should have been done in November was to have provided Graham with a reasonable opportunity to consider the accusations and make a response. He could, for example, in that time reasonably have sought the advice of his Staff Association and a detailed response could have been constructed and, to the benefit of all, prepared. No one denies the seriousness of the investigations into the historic abuse allegations that have taken place on the Island of Jersey, but the accusations in the Warcup letter do not amount to a correspondingly serious breach of discipline, even if proved. All of the points raised in the Warcup letter are capable of dispute and I repeat, had Graham been given more time in November he may well have been able to give a reasonable explanation. It is worth, I think, at this point, observing and emphasising that the investigation at Haut de la Garenne has never been a formal murder investigation. It is worth emphasising that because of the context which will follow. It is worth re-emphasising what the then Deputy Chief Officer, Lenny Harper, said on 31st July, and I quote: “For the moment it is unlikely that a murder inquiry will be opened.” I come back to other statements that Mr. Harper made on 31st July later. To re-emphasise, it is not the purpose of today’s proceedings, or my submission, to conduct a pre-trial review of a case that has not even been fully investigated and does not look like being fully investigated for several more months. However, seeing as such importance has been attached to the Warcup letter it is important to address some of the key points. I think it is fair to give you warning, Minister, that some of these matters may well be dealt with in more detail in the forthcoming judicial review. I will try and simplify some of the issues raised by David Warcup. The first one was that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure was not put in place. That is an important point raised by David Warcup. In fact, it is his first point and a cardinal point for much of what follows. I have to tell you that the institution of a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure in the context of murder and major investigations is entirely a matter of judgment. It would not seem to me to be necessary in the circumstances of the Island of Jersey. It certainly does not represent a breach of discipline, or amount to gross misconduct. The inference is that a Gold - Silver - Bronze command and control structure would have been put in place in England and Wales under A.C.P.O. and N.P.I.A. (National Police Improvement Agency) major murder and associated crime investigation guidelines. In fact, the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual 2006 only requires that a Gold group be created, not a Gold - Silver - Bronze command structure, if an investigation is also declared a critical incident. What the A.C.P.O. murder investigation manual does require is that a senior investigating officer is appointed and this Graham did; first in the form of a detective inspector, who ran the investigation for the first 18 months and then as the matter gathered seriousness, he properly reflected the seriousness and status of the forthcoming investigation by putting his own deputy in as S.I.O. (Senior Investigating Officer). I think this clearly emphasises the seriousness with which Graham approached the whole question of the historic child abuse inquiries and the Haut de la Garenne investigations in particular. Now, National Police Improvement Agency professional practice, and I emphasise professional practice, advice is that for the management of critical incidents the guidelines, the professional practice guidelines, provide assistance for policing, and I emphasise these words “in the United Kingdom.” It is contained on the inside page of the practice advice. This practice advice contains information to assist policing in the United Kingdom. So, there is no automatic transference from the practice advice of the N.P.I.A. in the United Kingdom to the States of Jersey. The introduction to that practice advice also states that it should be used by chief officers to shape police officers to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels of service. It goes on: “The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at a local level in order to achieve the appropriate police response.” It will therefore be noted that the practice advice on critical incident management applies strictly to the U.K. However, even if it were to apply strictly to the States of Jersey it still requires adjustment and choices to be made at a local level. It does not remove the judgment of a chief officer or any other senior rank involved in the incident. Now, the N.P.I.A. practice advice was created in order to ensure that incidents which might become critical received an appropriately high level of response at their instigation. It can in no way be suggested or inferred that the States of Jersey Police underestimated, or understated, their initial or subsequent response to the emerging historic child abuse inquiry and the specific investigation at Haut de la Garenne. A critical incident is defined by A.C.P.O. as, and I quote: “Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family, and/or the community. It will be noted that the order of priority is the victim, the family, and the community.” Both the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation conspicuously put the needs of the victims and their families first, but they still had regard to the impact on the wider community, given the need to ensure that the chain of alleged abuse was finally halted and that the victims and their families were protected from threat and intimidation. The N.P.I.A. guidance goes on specifically to say that each incident must be assessed on its own merits. Those are the words used: “Each incident must be assessed on its own merits.” It adds, and I quote: “There is an obligation on chief officers to ensure that critical incidents are not only declared, when it is necessary and appropriate to do so, but also that the response is proportionate to the scale of the incident.” The response is proportionate to the scale of the incident. Respecting the command structure, the practice advice simply states that there should be: “Unambiguous command and control.” The N.P.I.A. advice does indeed allow for a tiered response at 3 levels; local, cross-border, and force. Crucially these are only suggested. That is the word used “suggested.” So, the tiered response is not a mandate, even within a manual that amounts only to practice advice and in which flexibility of decision-making is not merely permitted but encouraged and which explicitly applies only to the United Kingdom. The practice advice furthermore relates to the structures and circumstances of forces in England and Wales and would be manifestly inappropriate in circumstances which are as compact as those on the Island of Jersey. It should be noted that in the last H.M.I.C (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Inspection) for the Island the matter of the arrangements for major investigations or critical incidents was not raised. Explicitly, it did not recommend the adoption or even the adaptation of any A.C.P.O. N.P.I.A. guidance or practice advice on major investigations or critical incident management. Therefore, the institution of Gold - Silver - Bronze and the command structure, in the circumstances of the historic child abuse inquiry and the Haut de la Garenne investigation is at most a matter of professional judgment, even argument, and certainly not a matter per se of gross misconduct which merits the imposition of an initial suspension or its continuance now. The second issue raised in the David Warcup letter is that key partners were not included at a strategic or operational level. There were sound operational reasons for not including key partners in the investigation, as suspicion had fallen on a number of senior individuals in both the departments of education and social services. The involvement of the N.S.P.C.C. (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) which Graham instigated, was a perfectly valid alternative.

(3) The use of an independent advisory group was not effectively managed. It is a matter of record that the Attorney General viewed the involvement of an independent advisory group as dialogue with potential jurors and that he wanted the group disbanded on the basis that it was a U.K. structure with no proper place in a small jurisdiction and that its activities could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial. I in no way invite a critique of the Attorney General’s decision, but I do ask you to observe that it can hardly be levelled as a reason for suspending or investigating Graham.

(4) Although a media strategy was developed, it is clear that its application led to an unprecedented level of media interest and public concern. Having dealt with the Gloucester floods of July and August 2007, Minister, I can assure you that Chief Officers of Police are not in control of unprecedented levels of media interest or public concern. So, it is not really clear how this amounts to criticism of the Chief Officer. It certainly was his job to ensure that there was a media strategy in place and this he did. He can in no way be held responsible for the media circus that followed.

(5) That there had been improper disclosures to the media and breaches of data protection. There is no suggestion that any of this is attributable to the Chief Officer, even if they have occurred, and it is the position of Graham that he knows nothing of any improper disclosures. He certainly did not sanction any.

(6) Where inaccurate and misleading reporting did occur there was no evidence of any attempt to issue corrections. That is not the case and examples of correction can be given, although I would suggest that that is probably more appropriate for the investigation and any possible tribunal.

(7) The adversarial and combative stance adopted by the S.I.O. was allowed to continue unchecked. This is entirely a matter of opinion and it certainly is not a disciplinary matter for the Chief Officer. It certainly does not merit something that would amount to suspension, but in that context I would invite you to consider some of the statements that were made by Mr. Harper on 31st July in this statement that was recorded by the BBC then. He said: “For the moment it is unlikely that a murder inquiry will be opened. It has so far been impossible to date the remains precisely. We are pinning our hopes very much on the process of carbon dating. The latest information we are getting is that for the period we are looking at it is not going to be possible to give us an exact time of death. The small number of bones that we have carbon dated up to now have given us different readings. On one bone we were told there was a probability that they died in 1650, but also a smaller probability that they had died in 1960. So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask your question …” I could go on. This hardly sounds to me like a combative media statement.

(8) Allegations in the media of corruption within the States of Jersey Police by the former S.I.O. have not been evidenced. The Chief Officer will plainly state that there is an abundance of evidence of serious corruption and malpractice in previous years. The reports of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary prior to his appointment described a failing force with significant problems of standards and performance. There is now a well-documented record of robust actions taken by the Chief Officer since his appointment to address and turn around this culture.

(9) An absence of financial controls. This simply is not the case. The Chief Officer will assert that he was not the accounting officer in the States of Jersey Police. This is a matter of legal status, and that he did formally table financial issues to the appropriate accounting officers at fortnightly meetings.

(10) Media reports have suggested that children have been murdered and buried at Haut de la Garenne. An assessment of the evidence casts significant doubt on this hypothesis. The evidence on which the searches were commenced was not strong and does not appear that there were grounds to commence a search of the home at Haut de la Garenne. I will refer you once again to that media statement of 31st July. But it is simply inconceivable that once information was received that a thorough search and excavation of the home at Haut de la Garenne was not carried out. To do otherwise would have risked justifiable accusations of a cover-up.

(11) I paraphrase here. The scull that was supposed to be found was not a scull. The shackles were not shackles and the cellars were in fact voids under the floor. Some facts. It was a scientist that originally investigated the trench and it was that scientist who identified an item of remains as a scull. Initially, the Oxford laboratory that inspected that remain stated that it had extracted collagen which can only come from bone. Only later did they express doubts. The Chief Officer can in no way be held responsible for this chain of events and the eventual outcome. As regards shackles, it was builders interviewed by the media who stated there were shackles. As for the teeth that were found, a local orthodontist specified that the teeth were from children and that they could not have come from children that were alive. It was only later that U.K. experts offered an opposing view and indeed that opinion remains divided. I will go back to the Lenny Harper statement of 31st July. This is the BBC here: “Police have been investigating allegations of abuse at the home from the late 1940s onwards. Many witnesses have given evidence of sexual and physical abuse in the 1960s and 1970s but Haut de la Garenne was built as an industrial school in the late 19th century and Lenny Harper said it was possible the remains could date from that time, though the police have other evidence indicating that the remains were burned and efforts made to conceal them in the late 1960s or early 1970s.” This is a quote from Lenny: “So, while that possibility does exist then you have to ask, why should people go to all the trouble of moving the bones, of burning them at some stage, and of hiding them in a different place and then covering them up? We do not have answers to that and that is part of the problem” he said.

(12) S.I.O. Harper was not effectively supervised. This is simply wrong. There is no issue that S.I.O. Harper was properly supervised by Graham Power and that he did so to the best of his ability, under the guidance of an A.C.P.O. advisory group which formed the function of a Gold support group in a critical incident in the United Kingdom. His evidence of supervision is recorded in notebooks, to which regrettably he does not now have access. Now, much has been made of the review of the 2 Metropolitan officers and that was the report, Minister, which you kindly offered to make available in a redacted form but for reasons that we have discussed is not now available to us. What I will say in respect of that though is that unless there are specific allegations of misconduct, indeed gross misconduct, contained in that report there is no reason why Graham should not have been shown a copy prior to his suspension on 12th November. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police report is only one point of view. You are fully aware now that there are other reports by a very senior and experienced U.K. investigating officer which offers a different perspective. I repeat that these should have been considered before any action was taken to suspend Graham in November. That that opinion exists should certainly be taken into account now, for to do otherwise is simply to decide the case without the full consideration of all the evidence that is available to us even now and that cannot be right in terms of Graham’s human rights or the principles of natural justice. Now, the A.C.A.S., C.I.P.D. advice recognises that suspension should only be implemented as a last resort and after redeployment has been considered. That Graham is the Chief Officer is not a reason for not considering redeployment per se, or for not retaining him in an active post under restricted circumstances. It is not necessary to redeploy Graham to restricted duties as there is no reason to suppose that an officer of his high integrity and standards would interfere with an investigation which is already 4 months old. It should certainly have been considered back in November and should be considered now. I do not recommend it, as it is my view that Graham should be reinstated immediately to full operational duties, but it certainly is preferable to him remaining unnecessarily and disproportionately, and I would suggest now, unjustifiably, on suspension. I repeat Graham is an officer of high personal integrity and to suggest that he would interfere with the inquiry is not supported by any of the available information. The A.C.A.S. C.I.P.D. guidelines recognises that suspension brings with it an automatic stigma and to many an assumption of guilt. This effect is amplified in the case of a Chief Officer. Furthermore, the suspension must be taken in the overall context of the force and Graham’s strategic management of it. We do have to consider therefore what the most recent H.M.I.C. inspection of the Island said about leadership of the force and I will say that that inspection is overall a very, very favourable report. Believe you me, I have read lots of them. What it says about leadership is: “The Chief Officer group is forward thinking, proactive in terms of development of the force, and accessible to staff. They seek and utilise good practice from U.K. Forces in ways that are applicable to the operational context of Jersey and through effective dialogue and negotiation with local politicians, obtain finance and resources to maintain acceptable levels of service.” I would say that that report also had ample opportunity to consider the investigative methods and structure

26 comments:

Anonymous
said...

You keep on saying 'How do we get out of this one' all the time. Who is 'we' and do you honestly believe anybody you attack on here is remotely interested in these posts of yours when Graham Power doesn't even endorse what you are doing anyway?

All you are doing is creating enemies for yourself and if you seriously think you can bring a Government down with this dribble you must simply be thick.

This is a quote from Graham Powers letter to states members in january 2009. This could have saved us a lot of money when the crow brought his proposition but oh no the regulars voted against it. One will check how sean power voted on this one

IRUKA -You might find this useful

From Graham Power

0. I will now set out how these matters could have been approached in a calm, measured and discreet manner.

10.1 On the little information I have it appears that the alleged concerns of the Minister arise largely from the preliminary findings of a review, carried out by the Metropolitan Police, of the earlier stages of the historic abuse investigation. This review was of course carried out at my invitation. I understand that the review has highlighted some issues regarding the processes and management structures which were in place during the earlier stages of the enquiry and draws attention to the fact that these were not consistent with what is customary in London. I also believe, and I think that this is important, that none of the critical comments relate to anything in place in the force at the current time and that the review offers support for the structures which, during the course of the investigation, I have either put in place personally or directed others to put in place on my behalf.

10.2 It is quite normal for such a review to present challenges. If a Minister has any concerns in respect of matters raised then it would be reasonable and proper to ask the Chief Officer for a report. Had I been asked to do this I would have seen it as my duty to do readily as requested and would have provided a full and accurate account to the best of my ability. It is probable that in doing so I would have drawn attention to the complex and challenging nature of the enquiry in a small force with a small leadership team and in particular the fact that the force establishment provides for no role equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable (Crime) as is common in U.K. forces. (The Post of Assistant Chief Constable "Crime" or "Crime Services" is one which is occupied by a person trained and qualified in the exercise of strategic oversight of major crime enquiries. There is no equivalent post in Jersey.) I would also have drawn attention to how, in the absence of any locally qualified person, extensive use was made of external experts, appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The appointed experts assisted in the earlier stages, made a series of written recommendations, and offered positive comment on the speed with which their recommendations had been put into effect.

How could anybody read that documentation and not believe Graham Power has been done up like a kipper? ILM, in my opinion, is conducting nothing short of a bl00dy Kangaroo court, Graham Power shoud never have been suspended purely on the "opinion" of David Warcup. This is a complete mess and a disgrace that this could be done to a Chief Police Officer.

Do the right thing Senator Le Marquand how can you be a part of this? And you want David Warcup to be the next Police Chief? What a disgrace, a real disgrace.

Saw David Warcup driving out of HQ todayLooked very red in the face, most unlike chief of police to be driving a squad car he was very casually dressed with open collarHad he just discovered that there had been a robbery at the stationInterim report that Le Marquand wanted to see, has gone missing

THE police have never been better equipped to deal with child abuse allegations, according to a leading member of the force’s historical child abuse investigation team.

Detective Inspector Alison Fossey has said that the way police handle child abuse cases had ‘improved significantly’ since the 1980s.

She made her comments to reassure Islanders after a 62-year-old paedophile was this week jailed for 12 years.

Leonard Miles Vandenborn had sexually abused two girls, now adults, for more than a decade in the 1970s and 1980s.

Article posted on 19th June, 2010 - 2.58pm

Now i would like to thank Graham Power,Lenny Harper & Stuart Syvret for making Jersey a safer place for all children.

There can be no doubt that the Historic Abuse Investigation and all that came with it has shaken up the child protection services.

This can only be a good thing but we cant be complacent

One thing i thought was good about the Alison Fossey interview and didn't make it online

' A number of recommendations have been made in recent years in the field of child protection ,particularly following high-profile incidents and the resulting public inquiries ,'said Det insp Fossey ' The states police will always take cognisance of such recommendations and national guidance from bodies such as ACPO with a view to implementing best practice'

Remember ILM must remain 'NEUTRAL' and with David Warcup being so involved in the original suspension he seems to be backing his man.

This is why we must find out who is advising him on what is right or wrong regarding police procedures, if he wants his man in place he surly will be very selective in what he brings to the house, his mind seems made up.

Brian Napier is taking a long time and i believe its because he has walked into a hornets nest

‘I’ll resign over police chief appointment’By Dolores Cowburn

Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand.HOME Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand will resign if States Members do not back David Warcup as the next police chief.

The Senator warned yesterday that if acting chief officer Mr Warcup was not appointed by the States, he would accept that the House had no confidence in his ministry and would quit. He was speaking after a hearing with the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny panel yesterday.

The panel wanted to find out why the proposition for Mr Warcup’s appointment had been progressed while current police chief Graham Power remains suspended.

The panel, chaired by Deputy Roy Le Hérissier, asked the Senator whether he would delay the proposition regarding Mr Warcup’s appointment until Mr Power’s retirement in July. The Senator refused and said that he would have started the process for a new chief officer even if Mr Power was still in office, as the department needed continuity

With the exception of the Pitmans I doubt anybody else gives a shit to be honest but if you want to believe this is top news whilst tax concerns seems to be dominating everybody else's worries then carry on talking to yourselves.

Funnily enough though I would agree with a previous tongue in cheek comment that you must be thick carrying on like this. After Syvret's humiliation in the by-election, I would have thought his election nominators, i.e people like yourself, would have put a sock in it for now. You must realise that there are people out there that want his head on a stick and they want to make an example out of him for the insults he has carried out on the Internet on them and thats no bullshit. So you must be just as daft as he is in carrying on insulting and accusing people like you are doing and thats before anything has been made public about the findings of the Wiltshire Report.

On top of this Graham Power hasn't asked you to do this, so you must be just using his confidential situation to attack people you hate personally as one of the nominators of Stuart Syvret.

Rico,admire your courage & time taking on this issue & others otherwise would fade away which is just what is wanted by establishment now as everyone else has been bullied into fear of doing more.Very well rsearched so you are far from thick as far as I am concerned.Keep searching from one not able to put head above the trenches!!

'I have never seen anything like this in 30 years. In respect of sexual offences I have been a detective for 22 years, I can show convictions for rapes and sex offences by predatory peadophiles as well as a huge number of murders, but I have never ever seen police working in this way, I really am absolutely shocked by what has gone on. It is abhorrent behaviour'. Mick Gradwell.

"In my opinion, whatever procedure had been followed here, even if it had gone to full disciplinary hearings, even if it had gone to appeals, even if it had gone to the States itself, at the end of the day, members of the public of the Island would still continue to argue over this and individuals involved for many years to come. That was apparent to me right from the start of my involvement in this. It is regrettable that the formal procedures have not occurred, but the members of the public and Members of the States will receive information and they will then have to make up their own mind"

We found out today that Operation Blast has cost 260,000 thats right 1 years work from Wiltshire and ILM says

"it is regrettable that the formal procedures have not occurred, but the members of the public and Members of the States will receive information and they will then have to make up their own mind"

This really is sad. I am the same as you a member of the public but I shall wait for the conclusions to be made public by the Wiltshire Police and not waste anymore time debating conspriracy theories like you lot are doing here.

By the way I know Di Simon and would suggest you try contacting her before slagging her off on here.

ILM's performances in the States just sink lower and lower to the point you wonder when he will hit the bottom of the sea bed? And I say that having voted for him. What was I thinking?Trevor Pitman on the other hand just goes up and up in my estimation. I really hope he stands for Senator next year. I also hope he quits the JDA, not out of any disagreement with their principles I might point out, just because geoff's actions have undermined it so much, but this hope is a whole other story!